BATA AT BAHAGHARI: EXPERIENCES OF LGBT CHILDREN IN THE PHILIPPINES
[A.S.C. DISCUSSION SERIES NO. 1]
Citation: ASEAN SOGIE Caucus (2017). Bata at Bahaghari: Experiences of LGBT Children. ASC Discussion Series No. 1. Quezon
City.
Prepared by: Jan Gabriel Melendrez Castañeda
Edited by: Ryan Silverio
Layout by: Keow Abanto
ASEAN SOGIE CAUCUS
Unit 8-R Futurepoint Plaza 3
111 Panay Avenue, South Triangle,
Quezon City, Philippines
Email: info@aseansogiecaucus.org
www.aseansogiecaucus.org
ASEAN SOGIE CAUCUS is a regional network of human rights defenders advocating for the protection,
promotion and fulfillment of the rights of all persons regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, gender
expression and sex characteristics (SOGIESC). The organization envisions a SOGIESC-inclusive ASEAN
community.
EXPLANATORY NOTE:
The goal of this paper is to discuss points of interest documented during “Bata at Bahaghari: Children’s
Workshop on the Rights of LGBT Children”, a workshop conducted on 20 to 21 April 2016 by ASEAN SOGIE
Caucus in cooperation with the Civil Society Coalition on the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CSCCRC), and to offer recommendations for children’s rights groups. Participants consented to document their
feedback and publish it for wider use. Names and other identifying markers have been removed.
2
INTRODUCTION: Can we do better for our LGBT Children?
People respond to the topic of lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) children
in different ways. There is the shock at their
experience of violence based on nothing more
than, as our workshop participants put it,
“who they are” – that is, based on their sexual
orientation and gender identity and expression
(SOGIE). More shocking is that it has come to
be expected, in light of research that speaks,
seemingly in perpetua, of LGBT children’s
vulnerabilities.[1,2,3] To others, there is the shock
of saying “children” and “LGBT” in the same
breath: there is the gut response to attributing
sexual feelings to children, that it is disruptive to
nations and cultures, and so on.[4] But at their
core is the recognition that, as adults, we seem
helpless: whether it’s keeping LGBT children safe
or keeping children away from sexuality entirely,
there is a sense that we might be failing them.
Where human rights discourse is the primary
instrument, activists turn to international law – in
this case, the CRC, which holds the distinction
for being the most ratified human rights treaty.
[11]
Though there are no binding provisions
dealing specifically with LGBT children, a
provision under General Comment No. 15 of the
Committee on the Rights of the Child writes that
“States parties have an obligation to ensure that
children’s health is not undermined as a result
of discrimination”, citing sexual orientation and
gender identity.[12] Some institutions interpret the
CRC in this way: UNICEF, for example, identifies
non-discrimination “as a general principle of
fundamental importance for implementation
of the whole CRC”[13]; similarly, the Council of
Europe writes that protecting LGBT children is
“clearly laid out in the UN Convention on the
Rights of the Child”.[14]
That we need to do better for our children ought
to be non-controversial. The principle of the
“best interests of the child” as enshrined in the
Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)
makes it clear that all children be protected from
harm. And while it is not always understood how
pervasive stigma causes harm, the existing
researches make it clear that it does.[5,6] More
troubling is its ubiquity in social life, as one study
youth puts it: “Most respondents had experienced
some form of victimization, with no social
environment being free from risk of harm.”[7] This
appreciation of the information can serve as the
primary entry point for engagement.
For ASEAN, one important development –
important because it is the only ASEAN document
that references “LGBT” at all – comes from the
ASEAN Regional Plan of Action on Elimination of
Violence against Children.[15] Under the section
on vulnerable groups, it specifically lists “children
from the lesbian, gay, transgender or transsexual
community”. That said, but how these provisions
will be used remains to be seen.. It is up to
stakeholders to take advantage of this and hold
ASEAN member states accountable.
One example comes from a 2015 statement by the
Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines,
who wrote that discrimination “is contrary to
the Gospel spirit” and that “any measure that
counters discrimination of this kind is a gesture
of charity”.[8,9] While it came with many caveats,
the shift in language gives us much-needed
ground to move discussions on the treatment of
LGBT children in religious institutions forward.
Even when the paradigm assumes that being
LGBT was a physical disease, as in the case of
Indonesia where being LGBT was classified as a
mental disorder by The Indonesian Psychiatrists
Association[10], a case can still be made: if it is
true that being LGBT is an “illness”, it is also true
that it cannot be “cured” in unsafe environments
social stigma creates. Of course, these two
examples come with concessions many of us
are deeply opposed to. But for now, it is enough
to say that dialogue with those we have serious
differences in principle with is still possible.
One other important challenge concerns intersex
children. “Intersex” is a broad label encompassing
“a variety of conditions that lead to atypical
development of physical sex characteristics”.
[16]
The challenge stems primarily from the
idea that their sex characteristics “do not fit
typical binary notions of male or female bodies”.
[17]
The issues vary: one study, for example,
highlights “the negative impact of societal
ignorance, lack of acceptance of body difference
and the journey from silence to disclosure and
acceptance of individuality and choice in gender
identification”[18]; others highlight the debate
on the ethics of medical interventions.[19, 20, 21]
Sadly, data on the lives of intersex persons in
Southeast Asia is severely limited. One exception
comes from a report by the Asia Pacific Forum
of National Human Rights Institutions, which
devote a chapter to intersex persons.[22] Because
intersex children’s issues were not raised during
our workshop, we are unable to tackle it here. But
as we move forward, our reference to intersex
persons in our advocacy cannot remain tokenistic.
3
Finally, there is the other side of the conversation.
When we talk about how we can do better for
LGBT children, there is a tendency to ignore
one of our foremost experts on the topic: LGBT
children. Since our work hinges on human
rights principles, consider Article 13 of the CRC:
“The child shall have the right to freedom of
expression; this right shall include freedom to
seek, receive and impart information and ideas
of all kinds, regardless of frontiers ... through
any other media of the child’s choice.” It is not
just about protecting children when they express
themselves; we must create environments where
this freedom of expression is encouraged. It is
our hope that such initiatives can be sustained at
a larger scale.
INSIGHTS: What did we learn
from LGBT Children?
The goal of this section is to share some points
of interest that surfaced during our workshop,
with the hope that they can offer much-needed
perspective on some issues activists may
encounter in respect to LGBT children.
Domestic Tension and Silence
not know where to begin: because LGBT issues
are not talked about openly in places children
frequent (such as schools) or in places one
expects help (such as local police units), they
are unsure whether their problems will be taken
seriously or can be properly addressed. Their
experiences illustrated one of the consequences
of what has been called a “culture of silence”, as
it nips action at the bud by making the possibility
of redress uncertain.
Second is that they often choose to do nothing.
For one child, it is because these experiences
were a given: it has always been this way, so they
should just persevere until they are independent
enough to leave on their own accord. For another
child, it is because trying to address the issue
would expose them to greater harm, as the erring
family member may seek retribution. And for one
other child – and this is something shared by the
others – they simply love their family too much
to embarrass them or put them in harm’s way. In
all three cases, the children cope through other
means because the broader culture of silence
makes redress impractical or even impossible.
Met with silence, they turn silent themselves.
Equally difficult is when these experiences do
not fall under the typical rubric of “abuse”. For
example, one child who identified as transgender
reported the animosity that had grown between
her parents, who accuse one-another of bad
parenting as the reason their child is transgender.
The conflict between their parents generated
in the child feelings of shame, and she blamed
herself for “not being normal” as the cause of
her parents’ conflict. The lack of outright abuse,
although a good thing, also makes intervention
by outside parties more difficult to justify. So the
question is how we can respond effectively to
similarly ambiguous situations.
Rejection and its Varieties
The experience of rejection among LGBT children
by loved ones is insidious, not only because it
is terrible in and of itself – it is a powerful and
disruptive experience linked to all manner of
negative health outcomes[24, 25] – but because
it happens so often. It can also be difficult for
responders, who must calculate their response
to these cases carefully. The most obvious form
of rejection comes when family members literally
reject an LGBT child, with statements such as
“wala akong lesbianang anak” (“I have no lesbian
child”), as one of our participants reported. But it
However, when the children were asked about can also take subtler forms. One participant was
how they responded to these incidents, they told by their parents, “Wala naman sa lahi natin
responsed in two ways. First, is that that they do ang lesbiana” (“Being lesbian isn’t in our genes”),
LGBT children are often forced into stressful
circumstances, the usual suspects being a
complicated mix of emotional abuse (such as
verbal harassment and neglect) and outright
violence (such as battery and sexual assault),
often perpetrated by parents, siblings, or other
relatives. Sadly, these were reported to different
degrees by our participants, echoing a disturbing
trend on the experiences of LGBT people
generally.[23]
4
which may not address the child directly but tells her visits to the restroom to avoid the harassment
her that her place as a legitimate member of the from using the girl’s restroom. For another, it was
family was somehow invalid.
not just studying for class: he also had to make
sure he got to class without dirt or rocks thrown
A related incident was reported by another at him by bullies. These cases – having to plan
participant, whose brother told him, “walang lugar out visits to the restroom and avoiding violent
sa mundo ang mga bakla” (“there is no place in students, among many others – constitute not
the world for gay people”) – again not speaking only a violation of the children’s right to education
directly to the child, but nonetheless constituting and security but also an unnecessary burden on
an assault on the their sense of place in the world. their wellbeing.[29]
And one child, recounting an experience that
made the issue of their being a lesbian a matter The Potential Role of Vicarious
of life and death, quoted her grandfather’s dying
wish: “Sabi ng lolo sana bago siya mamatay, Trauma in LGBT Children’s Lives
maging maayos ako” (“Grandfather said that,
before he dies, I should fix myself”). It is easy One other issue was the possible impact of
to imagine how this might be deeply distressing vicarious trauma, also known as “secondary
for a child brought up in a culture where family is traumatic stress”, defined broadly as “the
held in such high regard.
emotional duress that results when an individual
hears about the firsthand trauma experiences of
Community Redress Mechanisms another”.[30] Vicarious trauma can be understood
as trauma rippling outwards, extending out to
In the experience of our participants, the response others who identify with the victims – in this case,
of local government units often compounded on those who identify as being part of the LGBT
rather than alleviated their problems. Even in community. To illustrate, one of our participants
places such as Quezon City, the only city as of this expressed their fear that they would end up like
writing whose anti-discrimination ordinance has Jennifer Laude, the transgender woman who
existing Implementing Rules and Regulations[26], was brutally murdered by an American soldier
taking action on LGBT children’s issues has in Olongapo City, and others who were similarly
not been straightforward. One child who tried to attacked.[31] “One day,” another child said, “words
report her abusive uncle was not taken seriously may not be enough and people will actually
by the barangay officials, and told that she was
just exaggerating. And even in the presence of a
responsive local government unit, LGBT children
are unable to seek redress either because they
do not know where to go or because traveling to
these places – centered mostly in Metro Manila
– is costly.
Using Minority Stress to
Understand LGBT Children’s
Experiences
The way stigma works does not only constitute a
unique stressor for LGBT children, but compounds
on existing stressors all children already go
through. In schools, for example, LGBT children
also have to deal with everyday tasks: studying
for classes, building and maintaining friendships,
and dealing with the novel feelings of puberty,
among others. But because of their SOGIE, they
are forced into circumstances wherein “stigma,
prejudice, and discrimination create a stressful
social environment that can lead to mental health
problems in people who belong to stigmatized
minority groups”[27] – a concept referred to in
psychological research as the Minority Stress
Model.[28] For one transgender child, it was not
just about passing exams: she also had to plan
5
hurt us.” In some cases, vicarious trauma’s
impact mimic symptoms of post-traumatic stress
disorder.[32, 33, 34] So it is important to consider
how LGBT children’s continued exposure to the
collective trauma of LGBT people affects their
own health.
The Dilemma of “Compensating”
for one’s SOGIE
A common but understudied occurrence is how
many LGBT people respond to stigma through
“compensation”, when people attempt to deflect
attention from or make up for one’s perceived
faults and shortcomings – in this case, their
sexual orientation or gender identity – such as by
excelling in particular activities or over-achieving
in one’s career. For LGBT people, compensation
can be motivated by internalized homophobia
(i.e. learned responses of shame and guilt for
one’s own sexual orientation), deflect conflict with
unsupportive family members (i.e. the idea that
they cannot justify hurting or berating you if you
are successful), and to protect oneself from the
potential social and economic backlash of being
LGBT in unsupportive environments.[35, 36] These
were illustrated in the way some participants
thought how best to address discrimination: that
they should be “magalang” (“respectful”), that
they should wear “kaaya-ayang damit” (“decent
clothes”), and that they should study and work
harder.
This is dangerous in two ways. First, from a
human rights perspective, it teaches them that
their rights are conditional, based how well one
performs in school or how “decent” their clothes
6
are. Second, from a psychological perspective, to
teach people that there is something wrong with
them – that being LGBT is a something you need
to be redeemed from – and that they must work
harder to be considered a human being is both
dishonest and cruel.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
How do we move forward with LGBT Children?
At the end of the workshop, our participating organizations came together to consolidate their
insights. We have outlined here three salient points which came up during our discussions which we
believe are worth considering as we move forward with LGBT children.
1. Encourage dialogue towards an inclusive child rights framework.
Our participants’ experiences echo a much older historical trend, in which conservative religious
values played a role in perpetuating stigma in all areas of community and family life. But this is not
always the case, as religious values are also widely interpreted as accommodating to LGBT issues,
the fight against discrimination a moral duty by many religious sectors locally and abroad. Using an
example from our workshop, representatives from a child rights organization shared that they wanted
to incorporate LGBT rights into their policies, because they were in-line not just with accepted human
rights standards but also with church doctrine. Many religious sectors may not be as accommodating.
That said, framing LGBT issues as a critical or non-negotiable aspect of children’s rights – for the
simple reason that social stigma puts children in real danger – may help advocates get one foot in
the door and make collaboration possible.
2. Make LGBT issues concrete and actionable in your organization’s projects and
policies.
While vocal support is a welcome change, more important are plans of action. In our workshop,
one child rights organization said how much they appreciated how courageous the children were,
but this is as much about being in an enabling environment as it is about being courageous: they
were outspoken because the workshop explicitly guaranteed their freedom and offered them every
opportunity it could to express their views. Living in conditions that makes being outspoken dangerous
trains LGBT children to be silent, silence often being a matter of survival. As such, the willingness of
LGBT children to participate should not be taken as self-evident; we must make sure that resources
are devoted to creating these enabling environments. For example, in reiterating their organization’s
vision of becoming a source of support for LGBT children, another child rights organization committed
to the initiatives such as adding items for SOGIE in their future research projects (e.g. adding “sexual
orientation” and/or “gender identity” in demographic measures); revising response mechanisms to
include provisions for LGBT children (e.g. protocols for best practices, explicit non-discrimination
policy, etc.); and incorporating material on LGBT and SOGIE issues into their educational material.
7
3. Make children a part of your LGBT advocacy.
It is often said that mainstream LGBT advocacy has focused primarily on young adults, at the expense
of both older LGBT people and LGBT children. The unfortunate consequence is that many LGBT
organizations are unprepared to deal with their unique issues, which in the case of LGBT children
include laws and special protocols for the ethical treatment of minors, caring for traumatized children,
and so on. One child rights organization reiterated that while children should be given the opportunity
to do their part in understanding SOGIE issues, organizations should also take steps to preparing
themselves. This includes understanding the ethics of advocacy with children, designing programs
to allow for their greater involvement in their advocacy work, and becoming up-to-date with the latest
research on LGBT children’s issues.
REFERENCES
1. Saewyc, E.M., Skay, C.L.,Pettingell, S.L., Reis, E.A., Bearinger, L., Resnick, M., Murphy, A., Combs, L. (2006). Hazards of stigma: the
sexual and physical abuse of gay, lesbian, and bisexual adolescents in the United States and Canada. In Child Welfare, 85:2 (pp.
195-213). Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16846112.
2. Hunter, J. (1990). Violence Against Lesbian and Gay Male Youths. In Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 5:3 (pp. 295-300). DOI:
10.1177/088626090005003004.
3. Ryan, C. and Rivers, I. (2003). Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth: Victimization and its correlates in the USA and UK. In
Culture, Health and Sexuality, 5:2 (pp. 103-119). DOI: 10.1080/1369105011000012883.
4. Save The Children (2012). Situation Assessment of LGBT Street Children in Ho Chi Minh City.
5. Pascoe, E.A., Smart Richman, L. (2009). Perceived discrimination and health: a meta-analytic review. In Psychological Bulletin
135:4 (pp. 531-554). DOI: 10.1037/a0016059.
6. Schmitt, M.T.., Branscombe, N.R., Postmes, T., Garcia, A. (2014). The consequences of perceived discrimination for psychological
well-being: A meta-analytic review. In Psychological Bulletin, 140:4 (pp. 921-948). DOI: 10.1037/a0035754.
7. Pilkington, N. W. and D’Augelli, A. R. (1995). Victimization of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth in community settings. In Journal of
Community Psychology, 23 (pp. 34–56). DOI:10.1002/1520-6629(199501)23:1<34::AID-JCOP2290230105>3.0.CO;2-N.
8. Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (March 3, 2015). Pastoral Moral Guidance on the Anti-Discrimination Bill. Retrieved
from http://www.cbcpnews.com/cbcpnews/?p=52152.
9. Esmaquel, P. (March 4, 2015). CBCP on anti-discrimination bill: Gender is ‘God’s gift’. Rappler. Retrieved from http://www.rappler.
com/nation/85759-cbcp-anti-discrimination-bill-gender.
10.Yosephine, L. (February 24, 2016). Indonesian psychiatrists label LGBT as mental disorders.The Jakarta Post. Retrieved from http://
www.thejakartapost.com/news/2016/02/24/indonesian-psychiatrists-label-lgbt-mental-disorders.html.
11. Sandberg, K. (2015). The Rights of LGBTI Children under the Convention on the Rights of the Child. In Nordic Journal of Human
Rights, 33:4 (pp. 337-352). DOI: 12.1080/18918131.2015.1128701.
12. UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC), General Comment No. 15 (2013) on the right of the child to the enjoyment of the
highest attainable standard of health (Article 24), 17 April 2013, CRC/C/GC/15.
13. UNICEF (2014).Eliminating Discrimination Against Children and Parents based on Sexual Orientation and/or Gender Identity.
In Current Issues No. 9. Retrieved from https://www.unicef.org/videoaudio/PDFs/Current_Issues_Paper-_Sexual_Identification_
Gender_Identity.pdf.
14. Council of Europe. (October 2, 2014). LGBTI children have the right to safety and equality. Retrieved from https://www.coe.int/rm/
web/commissioner/-/lgbti-children-have-the-right-to-safety-and-equality.
15. Save The Children (2016). Sourcebook on Children’s Rights in ASEAN and Other Related Human Rights Regional Instruments.
Retrieved from https://resourcecentre.savethechildren.net/library/sourcebook-childrens-rights-asean-and-other-related-humanrights-regional-instruments.
16. American Psychological Association (2006). Answers to Your Questions About Individuals With Intersex Conditions. Retrieved
from http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/intersex.aspx.
8
17. United Nations (2015). Free and Equal Fact Sheet: Intersex. Retrieved from https://www.unfe.org/system/unfe-65-Intersex_
Factsheet_ENGLISH.pdf.
18. MacKenzie D., Huntington, A., Gilmour, J.A. (2009). The experiences of people with an intersex condition: a journey from silence
to voice. From Journal of Clinical Nursing, 18:12 (pp. 1775-1783). Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19646120.
19. Wiesemann, C., Ude-Koeller, S., Sinnecker, G.H.G., and Thyen, U. (2010). Ethical principles and recommendations for the medical
management of differences of sex development (DSD)/intersex in children and adolescents. In European
20. Dunham, Y. And Olson, K.R. (2016). Beyond Discrete Categories: Studying Multiracial, Intersex, and Transgender
Children Will Strengthen Basic Developmental Science. In Journal of Cognition and Development, 17:4 (pp. 642-665). DOI:
10.1080/15248372.2016.1195388.
21. Zeiler, K. and Wickström, A. (2009). Why do we perform surgery on newborn intersexed children? The phenomenology of the
parental experience of having a child with intersex anatomies. In Feminist Theory, 10:3 (pp. 359-377). DOI: 10.1177/1464700109343258.
22. Asia Pacific Forum of National Human Rights Institutions and the United Nations Development Programme (2016). Promoting
and Protecting Human Rights in relation to Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Sex Characteristics: A Manual for National
Human Rights Institutions. Retrieved from http://www.asiapacificforum.net/resources/manual-sogi-and-sex-charactersitics.
23. Katz-Wise, S. and Hyde, S. (2012). Victimization Experiences of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Individuals: A Meta-Analysis. In The
Journal of Sex Research, 49:2-3 (pp. 142-167). DOI: 10.1080/00224499.2011.637247.
24. Needham, B.L. and Austin, E.L. (2010). Sexual Orientation, Parental Support, and Health During the Transition to Young Adulthood.
In Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39:10 (pp. 1189-1198). DOI: 10.1007/s10964-010-9533-6.
25. Ryan, C., Huebner, D., Diaz, R., and Sanchez, J. (2009). Family Rejection as a Predictor of Negative Health Outcomes in White and
Latino Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Young Adults. In Pediatrics, 123:1 (pp. 346-352). DOI: 10.1542/peds.2007-3524.
26. Quezon City, Philippines. An Ordinance Providing for a Comprehensive Anti-Discrimination Policy on the Basis of Sexual
Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression (SOGIE), Ordinance No. SP-2357, 42nd Regular Session (2014). Retrieved from
http://quezoncitycouncil.ph/ordinance/SP/sp-2357,%20s-2014-1.pdf.
27. Meyer, I. (2003). Prejudice, Social Stress, and Mental Health in Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Populations: Conceptual Issues
and Research Evidence. In Psychol Bulletin, 129:5 (pp. 674–697). Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/
PMC2072932/.
28. Meyer, I. And Frost, D. (2012). Chapter 18: Minority Stress and the Health of Sexual Minorities. In Handbook of Psychology
and Sexual Orientation. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199765218.003.0018. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/289008046_Minority_Stress_and_the_Health_of_Sexual_Minorities.
29. Kelleher, C. (2009). Minority stress and health: Implications for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning (LGBTQ)
young people. In Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 22:4 (pp. 373-379). DOI: 10.1080/09515070903334995.
30. National Child Traumatic Stress Network (n.d.). Secondary Traumatic Stress. Retrieved from http://www.nctsn.org/resources/
topics/secondary-traumatic-stress.
31. ASEAN SOGIE Caucus (2016). Joint Submission Of The Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) on the Situation of Lesbian, Gay,
Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex and Queer (LGBTIQ) Persons in the Philippines (3rd Cycle, 2017). Quezon City.
32. Rosenthal, B.S. (2000). Exposure to Community Violence in Adolescence: Trauma Symptoms. In Journal of Adolescence, 35:138
(pp. 271-284). Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11019771.
33. Watson, L.B., DeBlaere, C., Langrehr, K.J., Zelaya, D.G., Flores, M.J. (2016). The influence of multiple oppressions on women of
color’s experiences with insidious trauma. In Journal of Counseling Psychology, 63:6 (pp. 656-667). DOI: 10.1037/cou0000165.
34. Padmanabhanunni, A. and Edwards, D. (2013). Victimisation in the Lives of Lesbian-Identified Women in South Africa: Implications
for Clinical Assessment and Treatment. In Journal of Psychology of Africa, 23:3 (pp. 385-392). DOI: 10.1080/14330237.2013.10820642.
35. Matthews, C. and Salazar, C. (2012). An Integrative, Empowerment Model for Helping Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Youth Negotiate
the Coming-Out Process. In Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 6:2 (pp. 96-117). DOI: 10.1080/15538605.2012.678176.
36. Dooley, J. (2009). Negotiating Stigma: Lessons From the Life Stories of Gay Men. In Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services,
29:1 (pp. 13-29). DOI: 10.1080/10538720802494784.
9
ASEAN SOGIE CAUCUS
Unit 8-R Futurepoint Plaza 3
111 Panay Avenue, South Triangle,
Quezon City, Philippines
Email: info@aseansogiecaucus.org
www.aseansogiecaucus.org
This publication was produced with funding support from Arcus Foundation and UNDP
Being LGBTI in Asia Program.